tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 7, 2013 2:00am-4:01am EST
diagnostic side of mental illness. it is clear that as long as we base our diagnoses on behavior, as i just said, we are getting there late. the question is how to bring biology and a number of other kinds of measures to the table so that we can identify these disorders much earlier and began to intervene much earlier with much better outcomes. if you listened to my colleagues who have been on the show this morning, it is really interesting how, across-the- board, whether talking about infectious diseases, cancer, we do not talk about heart disease but it is even more true there -- the lesson we learned in medicine is the earlier we can intervene, the better the outcomes. when you diagnose as dsm does simply by presenting symptoms, you are always getting there late. host: our guest is a graduate from boston university. walk us through your background. guest: it has been varied.
i started off as an english major in college and went on to medical school. i have been trained in psychiatry. i did clinical research in psychiatry on obsessive- compulsive disorder here at the nih. that is really where i fell in love with science, being in an environment like this where i could explore whatever i could become passionate about. it was a fantastic opportunity. it actually got me out of clinical research and ultimately into doing more basic neuroscience . i spent 20 years looking at the doing thats -- research. and i came back to the nih. host: we have a call from missouri. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. i finished two books by caroline leaf. i do not know whether she is a psychologist or psychiatrist.
but her books are on thoughts and what enters the brain. i just find it really hard to stay with this problem because i have got a lot of problems with hate. and all of the information i see on television seems to be trytive information, and i to eliminate all of that. but it is almost impossible. all the wars. i mean, i am so happy that you have this program on this morning. i am going to hang up and listen to the program. thank you very much. host: thank you for the call. guest: by the way, i would like to make one remark. i am so delighted to have you here at nih. but i would not want your viewers to think that the nih leadership is all male and all pale and maybe even a little bit frail. we have a very diverse group of people here at the various
institutes of nih. i want to make sure you come back in the future and have a chance to talk to some of the others as well. host: we are happy to do so and appreciate your hospitality this morning and the staff and the chance to tap into your expertise. we would be delighted to come back again. we have another 15 minutes. do not leave us. jeff is joining us from new york. caller: i have a question about schizophrenia and that maybe schizophrenia might be compared to telepathy, and i would be interested in the symptoms of schizophrenia. thank you. what is your story? why do you bring this up? caller because the mentioned thoughts and people with kids over in your hear voices -- people with
schizophrenia hear voices. people with schizophrenia might naturally have that ability to hear voices. host: thanks for the call. guest: schizophrenia is one of the topics we are most focused on at the nih, what we call a serious mental illness. it is complicated and is probably many disorders that share key features. one of them involves hearing voices. we call those the sort of positive symptoms or the ones we know the most about when we think about this illness. people who have delusions and hallucinations. but there are other features as well. some of those have to do with a lack of motivation and a lack of ability to move forward in life. there is a third group of symptoms which we call the the cognitiveoms, deficits. those are problems with memory and problems of attention. sadly, we do not have good treatments for those latter two
categories. we have treatments for hallucinations and delusions, medications at work quite well. but the other parts of this syndrome, the parts that are often even more disabling, we need to come up with much better treatments. that is part of why nih is so focused on developing both better diagnostics and better therapeutics for these kinds of illnesses. host: this tweet on the issue of mental health -- are there any other significant development being made in other countries? guest: it is a great question. recently, mental disorder research has become global. there is a lot of interest in global mental health, and that is not just from europe and australia. canada and increasingly in other parts of the world. the disorders we're talking about our global and not unique to the developed world. as a result, there have been
some very interesting little-resource environments to try to figure out how to do better. so when we think about global mental health, we actually think about what is being done in places like rwanda or places in quitewhere resources are low. yet sometimes the outcomes are quite good. we have been using global mental health and not only to think about how we can be helpful to those with fewer resources but how we can learn from them, to figure out how we can do better in the united states. host: george from jacksonville, florida. florida but myin sister has a medical facility in new jersey. equipment used mostly for cardiac diagnosis. but she has recently begun using it also for brain scans. she has been able to detect early on the proteins lack
buildup in the brain way before there are any noticeable symptoms in the patients. can you tell me more about this? great question. if these are brain disorders, we need to look at the organ of interest. that includes brain imaging like pet scans. increasingly we have been able to detect changes, for instance in people with early alzheimer's disease where you can see the changes in the brain well before you see cognitive decline. in other disorders it has not been quite so straightforward. so we are quite interested in being able to do the same thing for teenagers who may be at risk for psychosis. most of the mental disorders begin early in life before age 25. what we would really like to do is be able to identify brain changes much earlier than 25
when someone comes in with a psychotic illness. the hope is that we would use similar techniques as what we are using an alzheimer's. but this is still in the realm of research, not quite ready for prime time. host: would any of the cognitive or mental issues -- can you put in terms of statistics with the chances are if that does run in your family that you also can suffer a similar situation? depends on they disorder itself. this is where genetics has become so helpful. we used to mostly make these kinds of estimates based on family history. now we understand that we can do far better if we actually look at the and heritability component in the genes. that confer genes quite a risk from alzheimer's or parkinson's, but those are in the minority of people who have those disorders. for the mental disorders like
autism and schizophrenia and bipolar, there is a component that is inherited. we do not have all of the genes that tell us where that is coming from. 128ave now just recently genetic hits in schizophrenia. two years ago we had almost none. this is a very fast-moving field. but i have to say that we're still looking at family history is one indication. in the case of schizophrenia, the recurrence rate, that is if someone else in your family has it, the risk for you goes from about 1% in the general ovulation to as much as 10%. in the case of autism, it has been higher. 2% up to as% to much as 15% or 20%. it is a substantial family risk. mental healthc is research at nih. our guest is dr. thomas insel. this is a tweet from a viewer --
i love it when c-span's "washington journal" has accomplished nonpolitical guests who are great at explaining their expertise and at talking to guests. guest: thank you. host: allen from virginia, good morning. i am very glad you're on tv this morning. i am a disabled veteran with traumatic brain energy -- injury and loss of cognitive function. one point is unequal treatment under the law. when i lost my disability insurance, we're limited to like two years whereas some of them as cancer or parkinson's or something like that, he goes on for the rest of their life. we are caught up -- cut off automatically at two years. i have a good psychiatrist. i have an neuropsychiatrist. i have a urologist. all of these guys.
seen that these people work together as an integrated team even though they are working on the same bodily organ, our brain, the most complex organ in our body. guest: thanks for calling. those are both critical points. i wish we had the whole 30 minutes to cover both of them. then the focus on the latter point about the integration of care. you're absolutely right. i mean, one of the problems we have here is that we have disciplined smoke all of which are looking at problems from the at thisan that come with very different training, different language, different treatment approaches. imagine for a moment if we had two fields of medicine on the heart, one that studied arrhythmias and one that studied heart attacks, you would say that those are all the problems of cardiologists. yet, we have psychiatry and
narrower june, almost as if you have two disciplines separated by a common organ -- you have psychiatry and narrower june. for people like yourself who are struggling with tbi and problems that have to do it conflicts changes in the brain, we need to bring all that together into a team they can really work well and bring the best tools we have appeared one of the best points we can make is that we do not actually have the treatments we need yet. one of the issues about two days rogue ram on the sequester -- on today's program on the sequester, we have to invest more and more and understand the basics so that we have bettered agnostic tests and better treatments. a long time ago, one of the great advocates of research on that ifade the comment you think research is expensive,
tried disease. she recognized that this kind of work is an investment against the cost of disease. part of our concern when we face the sequestration is that we know there is a long cost and not investing now, the people , people with tbi complicated brain disorders that we do not understand well enough, you will not have the treatments in the future and your children will have the treatments in the future that we need to develop right now. david from phoenix, arizona. caller: thank you for taking my call. insel,ou, dr. in cell -- for being here today. i was a guinea pig for a pharmaceutical company. one of the medications went wrong and left me with cognitive issues.
as havingagnosed me aids-related dementia. diligently to get my communication skills back and not be so nervous in front of people. and i think i want to go back to steve's initial question to you as to why there is not the is, youand why there know, problems in the community of not seeing this. to when peoplek would treat a mixed-race person that looks white but is half , and theyave hispanic would not treat them as different than white. host: thank you for the call. guest: there is a problem we
struggle with, there is sort of system here. there has been a sense of disorders of the mind are not real disorders, that they are not actually brain disorders. to be fair, there is a lack of understanding about what we're dealing with. there is a failure for most of the public still to realize just how disabling and often fatal these disorders are. you have to remember that there are 38,000 suicides in the united states every year. of the time related to mental illness. that is more than the number of him aside by a factor of two. it is more than the number of traffic for tele these. it is more than the deaths of almost all forms of cancer, except for three. it is a significant problem, yet you do not see much attention to this issue and not much understanding that this is a
medical problem that must have a medical solution because it is a public health challenge. host: a final question in about 30 seconds. what are the big questions that you have moving forward? guest: for us, the challenges are going to be how to come up with the next generation of treatments and how to improve the way we do diagnostics. you get diagnosis the on the level of observable symptoms. we began to really put some real details that these are circuit disorders. and how do we bring together our understanding of the brain, understanding the complexity of human behavior to be up to help people with these, located disorders in a way that is lasting and allows them to recover and function fully in this world? [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] host:
>> to judiciary committee will come to order. without objection, shares authorized to declare recesses at any time. the chair welcomes the numbers of the audience who are here, that any man for who disrupt his meeting will be removed. presently, we do not have order in the hearing room. members of the audience must behave in an orderly fashion or they will be removed from the hearing room. wu 11 of the house rules provide the chairman of the committee may punish quorum by exclusion from the hearing. if there are members here who wish to remain, they should sit down immediately, or leave the room immediately or they will be exported from the room. [inaudible conversations] today's hearing is about the president's role in our judicial
system. our system of government is a tripartite one, with each branch having heard and defined functions delegated to it by the constitution. the president is charged with executing the law. the congress was writing the laws and the judiciary with interpreting them. the obama administration has the war the constitution carefully balanced separation of powers and unilaterally granted itself the extra constitutional authority to amend the laws and to waive or suspend this raw assertion of authority goes well beyond the executive power granted to the president didn't specifically violates the constitution's command that the president has to take care of the laws be faithfully executed. the president's encroachment into congress to spirit power is not a transgression that should be taken lightly. as english historian, edward gibbens, famously observed regarding the fall of the roman
empire, the principles of a free constitution are we probably lost when the legislative power is dominated by the executive. although the president's actions may not get them out to the executive powers overtaking the legislative power, they are certainly undermining the rule of law that is at the center of our constitutional design. from obamacare to immigration, the current administration is picking and choosing which laws to an oars. the constitution does not confer upon the president the executive authority to disregard the separations of powers by unilaterally waving, suspending or revising the laws. it is a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the program must be fully execute acts of congress. the president cannot refuse to enforce the law simply because he dislikes it. certainly, president have from time to time make broad claims of executive power. however, assertions of executive
authority have been limited to the area in which presidential powers are at their strongest. foreign affairs. the obama administration go has been equally assertive in the realm of domestic policy, routinely making end runs around congress for broad claims of prosecutorial discretion and regulatory actions that bush executive power beyond all limits. indeed, president obama is the first president since richard nixon to ignore a duly enacted law, simply because he disagrees with it. and they said the checks and balances established by the constitution, president obama has proclaimed that i refuse to take no for an answer, end quote. and i quote, where congress won't act, i will, end quote. throughout the obama presidency, we have seen a pattern. president obama circumvent congress when he doesn't get his way. for instance, while congress is currently debating how to gratian last, the president effectively enact the dream act
himself by ordering immigration officials to stop enforcing immigration laws against certain unlawful immigrants. when he couldn't get his preferred changes to the no child left behind education law, unilaterally waived its testing accountability provisions. when he objected to work requirements for bipartisan welfare reform law come he granted waivers that are specifically forbidden by the statutory text. instead of working with congress to amend federal drug enforcement policy, he's instructed prosecutors to stop enforcing certain drug laws in certain states and mandatory minimum sentences for certain offenses. most notably, the president has said that statutory authorization waived, suspended and amended several major provisions of this help a lot. these unlawful modifications to obama cared include dealing for one-year obama cares employer mandate, instructing states they are free to ignore the clear
language regarding which existing health care plans may be grandfathered in promulgating an iris world that allows for distribution of billions of dollars in obamacare subsidies that congress never authorized. the house has acted to validate retroactively so that the president of the golub omnicare modifications. however, rather than embrace these legislative fixes, the president's response has been to threaten to veto the house passed measures. the president's far-reaching claims of executive power if left unchecked will test the president was brought domestic policy authority that the constitution does not grant him. those in the president political party has been largely silenced in this dangerous expansion of executive power. what they say they president effectively repealed the environmental laws by refusing to sue polluters or the labor laws, by refusing to fine violators? what if they president wanted tax cuts that a president would not enact?
to the instrument the irs to decline to enforce the income tax laws? president george w. w. bush proposed unsuccessfully a reduction in the capital gains rate. should he have instead simply instructed the irs not to tax capital gains at a rate greater than 10%? the point is not what you think of any president obama's individual policy decisions. the point is the president may not consistent with the command that he faithfully execute the laws unilaterally amend, way versus and the law. we must resist the president deliver a pattern of circumventing the branch in favor of administrative decision-making. we cannot allow the separation of powers enshrined in our constitution to be abandoned in favor of an undue concentration of power in the executive branch. as james madison warned centuries ago in federalist number 47, the accumulation of all powers, legislative,
executive and judiciary in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. it is now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers for his opening statement. >> thank you. good morning -- top of the morning to the witnesses and to my colleagues on the house judiciary committee. the president's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws would be an important issue worthy of a hearing by this committee if there was any evidence that the president has indeed failed to fulfill his duty. but unfortunately, it appears that some here view policy disagreements as constitutional crises and proof of possible wrongdoing. the fact is that disagreements
are even allegations that a program is not being carried out the way congress intended should not raise constitutional concerns. if some of my friends want to disagree with the administration, it is of course it's certainly their right. but we should keep some days here and consider the following issues. to begin with some of the administration's actions criticized by the majority are not really that much out of the ordinary. ..
deadlines in medicare part d. even though it was legislation he strongly supported, and it's especially interesting that some vendors but strenuously opposed the affordable care act and worked diligently to obstruct implementation now complained that the president is unconstitutionally and heating the implementation of his signature legislative accomplishment. how interesting. taking steps to deal with the
realities of implementation of the complex problem hardly constitutes a failure to take care that the walls are faithfully executed. it is rather part and parcel of doing just that. there've been administrations in the past that have obstructed the implementation of the law they oppose. but no one is seriously contending that president obama opposes the affordable care act obamacare or that his administration's actions constitute obstruction of the law. and when in the past there've been legitimate concerns about the delays in the wall implementation parties have turned to the administrative procedure act. that act of laws -- allows the court to determine whether it is unreasonable and order appropriate relief.
notably no one has alleged that such action is necessary here. instead, critics of president obama and his signature legislation alleged a constitutional crisis but no court has ever found delay and implementation of a complex law in violation of the clause. now some of my colleagues seem to think that the exercise of the prosecutorial discussion, the traditional power of the executive is a constitutional violation. the decision for example two d. for the deportation of individuals who were brought to the united states as children who haven't committed felonies or misdemeanors and do not pose a threat to public safety is a classic exercise of such
discretion. the administration cannot legalize these individual statuses without a basis in the law that the administration's decision to d. for action against particular individuals is neither unusual nor unconstitutional. the supreme court has consistently held that the exercise of such discretion is the function of the president's powers under the take care clause. for example in hechler versus cheney the cour court held thate refusal to institute proceedings shares to some extent the characteristics of a decision of a prosecutor in the executive branch not to indict. a decision that has long been regarded as a special providence of the executive branch. it is as much of the executive
who is charged by the constitution to take care that they would be faithfully executed. finally, i hope that we can distinguish between failing execute the law. some contend that the president's decision not to defend the defense of marriage act violated the clause and in fact the president made a judgment subsequently vindicated by the united states supreme court that the act was unconstitutional. but while the case was pending, he continued to comply with the law. the president's decision not to defend the law wasn't novel and indeed the congress itself recognized this possibility.
congress understood that sometimes the administration's duty to take care that the law be faithfully executed might include recognizing that a particular statute is unconstitutional. the constitution as we are told is the supreme law of the land. presidents are required to follow it. so past administrations have exercised their discretion not to defend the law they have deemed unconstitutional. for example, the acting solicitor general at the time, john roberts, now the chief justice of the united states refused to defend the law that he believed to be unconstitutional in the case of natural broadcasting versus the
fcc. chief justice roberts argued that the statute providing for the minority preferences and broadcasting, broadcast licensing was unconstitutional. but despite the supreme court's precedent on the standard of review, he argued that strict scrutiny applied. to defend the law and prevail there were reasonable arguments that the chief justice roberts could have made in the defense of the law yet no one said he violated the constitution by arguing for the court to strike that down. his view wasn't vindicated in that case but they have ultimately resulted in a shift in the law that makes it clear
that the administration's decision not to defend doma was unprecedented or appropriate. so i join with all of the committee in welcoming our witness and look forward to their testimony. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> without objection, all other opening statements will be made a part of the record. we welcome the panel of witnesses today. if you would please rise we will begin by swearing you into. do you swear the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? lets the record reflect all of the witnesses responded in the affirmative. i will not begin by introducing the witnesses. the first witness is jonathan
turley of public interest law at george washington university law school. professor turley is a legal scholars who's written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory and portable. he's published over 3,000 academic articles into 750 articles in newspapers including "new york times," usa today and at "the wall street journal." he's been recognized as the second most cited professor in the country. the second witness is nicolas rosenkranz a professor of law at georgetown university law center. professor rosenkranz served and advised the federal government in a variety of capacities including as a clerk to supreme court justice anthony kennedy and as an attorney advisor to the department of legal counsel. he has published numerous articles including the subjects of the constitution which is the single most downloaded article
up at the constitutional interpretation of the history of the social sciences research network. the third witness is simon lazarus senior counsel with the accountability center. he's a member of the administrative conference of the united states and during his career he served as the public policy counsel for the national senior citizens law center as a partner at powell goldstein and associate director of president carter white house domestic policy staff. mr. lazarus has written articles that appeared in journals as well as publications such as the atlantic, the "washington post" and the new republic. our final witness is michael cannon of the health policy studies. he has been recognized as an influential expert on the affordable care act. mr. cannon has appeared on abc, cbs, cnn and fox news and has written articles that have been featured in numerous newspapers including "the wall street
journal," usa today and the "los angeles times." he is also the coeditor of a book on replacing the portable care act and the co-author of a book on healthcare reform. i would like to thank all of the witnesses today. each of the written statements will be entered into the record in its entirety and i ask that each witness summarized his or her summary in five minutes or less to stay within the timeframe there is a timing light on your table. when the light switches from green to yellow, you will have one minute to conclude your testimony. when the light turns red if signals that the five minutes have expired and we will turn first to professor turley. >> thank you mr. chairman, ranking member conyers and members of the committee. it's an honor to be invited to speak with you today. about the meaning of the clause. forgive my voice. i'm getting over a cold. but i hope to make it through this without having a coughing
fit. this is obviously a difficult area of the constitutional interpretation as the ranking member pointed out. this is not the first time that we have dealt with this question. it is also difficult for some of those that have been to agree with the president's policies, which i do. in fact i voted for him previously. however, in the madisonian system, it is often more important how you do something than what you do. the reason this is such an important hearing is that the bedrock of the constitution remains the separation of powers and it is often misunderstood as some type of conflict between the branches. it is a protection of liberty and allows issues that divide us to be cycled through a system in which factual interest can be transformed. even though all branches are equal in the madisonian system. the congress is the heart of that system. it is where the issues that are
divisive are transformed into the majoritarian decisions and it is the very reason that our system has survived so well. it brings stability to the system. benjamin franklin used to say that god helps those that help themselves. in our system the constitution holds those branches that help themselves. it's designed to give each branch of the ability of self protection and self defense and a great deal ride on the use of that power. in my view some of the questions we are going to talk about today are close questions. things like internet gambling, drug enforcement. i think you can have credible argument on the administration side but ideally the president has exceeded his brief. the president is required to execute the law and is not required to enforce all equally
or commit the same resources to them but i believe the president has crossed the line and some of these areas which i address in my testimony. what i want to start my opening statement is the emphasis this isn't a fight between politicians. rather this goes to the heart of what is the madisonian system. if a president can change the meaning of the law and a substantial way or refuse to enforce them it takes off-line the very thing that stabilizes the system. ideally that members will load the data they allow that to happen. this will not be the last president. there will be more presidents that will claim the same authority. when i teach constitutional law i often ask my students what is the limiting principle of your argument and when that is presented to the white house, too often it is answered in the
first person, but the president is the limiting principle or at least the limiting person you really cannot rely on the type of assurance in the system. so the greatest danger of the nonenforcement orders is not what it introduces to the tripartite system, but what it takes away. it allows for the issues to be resolved unilaterally. we don't have a dialogue anymore. someone can step in and make legislative process simply an option as opposed to the stage of the requirement. it is here in congress at the fashionable interest: us and convert. this is the transformative branch that's different from the other branches and that is what makes this so dangerous. what madison davis created a type of orbit of branches. in fact he was very interested in the physics when he wrote much of the early writing. there is a belief that these are
the three branches that exists in orbiexist inorbit held togete gravitational pull. it is a delicate balance that it is one that protects individual liberties. federalist 51 is one of the most cited sources for madison. it is a in that writing that he encourages to be on guard for the encroachment of their powers. for decades this congress has a lot of the core authority to drain away. i've written a lot about what this calls the fourth branch of this expanding number of federal agencies that are acting increasingly independently even designing their own jurisdicti jurisdiction. if that trend is to continue in the president's power to expand, the congress will be left on the constitutional landscape, a sad relic of what was once a tripartite branch of equal government. there are times like this one,
but the members of this body are tied by the covenant of faith and it is found in article one that says all legislative powers shall be vested in the congress of the united states. it is upon that covenant that we shouldn't divide by parties and we should stand firmly for the separation of powers. >> mr. rosenkranz, welcome. thank you mr. tremaine, representative conyers, members of the opportunity. thank you for the opportunity. mr. chairman can i representative conyers, thank you for the opportunity to express my views of the president's constitutional duty to take care that the law be faithfully executed. i quite agree -- >> check your microphone and put it closer to you.
>> to speak about the clause i want to associate myself with purpose and are turley blank opening statements. i agree with his remarks. i would like to draw the attention to the text of the clause that is about to begin by parsing the actual words so noticed that the clause is not a grant of power actually that the imposition of a duty. the president shall take care. this isn't optional. it is mandatory. second, note that the duty is personal. the execution has made me double gated to other officers that the duty can take care that they would be faithfully executed. that is the president's duty alone. third, notice of th that the prt is not required to take care that the law be completely executed. that would be impossible, given the finite resources.
the president does have power to make enforcement choices. however, he must make them faithfully. finally, it's important to remember that historical context of the clause. english kings had claimed the power to suspend the law unilaterally but the framers rejected that practice. here the executive would be obliged that they would be faithfully executed. so if this possible to view the controversy through this precise proper constitutional lens. for this purpose i'm going to focus on three examples. the president's unilateral decision to suspend certain provisions of the affordable care act to the presidents unilateral abridgment of the immigration and nationality act, and on the irs targeting of the president's political adversaries.
so first, the obamacare suspension. july 2, 2013 just before the long weekend, the obama administration announced over a blog post that the president would unilaterally suspend the employer mandate of obamacare notwithstanding the command of the law the statute is perfectly clear it provides that the provisions become effective on january 1, 2014. the post makes no mention in the statutory deadline. this raises the question of what it means to take care that the law would be faithfully executed to add to give the president broad discretion about how to best deploy the resources and at the scope of that discussion can be the subject of legitimate debate. but this isn't a calibration of executive resources. this is wholesale suspension of the law of the statutory command
to the contrary. whatever it may mean to take care that they be faithfully executed it simply cannot mean declining to execute the law at all. now, the president's remarks on this issue are striking. a few months ago he said he would actually prefer to simply call up the speaker of the house to request a change in the law that would have achieved the desire to delay. but the truth is he wouldn't have needed to pick up the phone. the house had actually already passed the mandates delay act. but the president for firm opening the lid is the change actually threatened to veto it. so, it seems almost like a willful violation of the take care clause. the immigration and nationality
act to suspension, which the chairman mentioned and i will just mention briefly what's striking about this is the president's decision to enforce the immigration law as though the dream act had been enacted when in fact it has not. so in this case it is almost a mirror of the other case rather than declining to comply with the duly enacted statute by the president is complying meticulously but with a bill that never became a law. congress repeatedly considered a statute called the dream act and the president favors this act and declined to pass it so the president simply announced that he would enforce the naturalization act and nationality act as though it had been -- as though the dream act had been enacted. to point out another way to point out that the law would be faithfully executed not those that fail to become the wall
like the dream act. finally, it will briefly mention the irs targeting. if the adverb faithfully means anything i would say that it means nondiscriminatory way. it means the president cannot enforce the law in a discriminatory manner. the story of the targeting actually the application of the tax law to the president's political enemies in a discriminatory way this is perhaps the single most troubling type of enforcement discrimination. so in a way perhaps the most troubling violation of the presidents obligation to take care that it is faithfully executed. ranking member conyers and
members that are here i'm afraid i'm going to have to disagree with my colleagues on the panel had spoken so far. by understanding the take care clause has become a favorite talking point with opponents within the array of the obama administration policy actions. all of these efforts or at least the ones with which i am familiar are in reality all these efforts to import the constitution into it are in reality political policy impacts are rhetorical make waves. they cloud the long-established presence and contradict the practice of all presidencies republican and democratic to implement complex and consequential bigotry programs as the congressman pointed out.
these critics fault the obama administration that the centrally for two kind of things. one making the necessary adjustments in the timing and implementation in the law and especially in the affordable care act matching immigration enforcement priorities with available resources and practical humanitarian and other. but exercising presidential judgment for such reasons is precisely what the constitution requires. what the framers requested in the executive branch under the protection of the nationally elected president and charged him to take care that they would be faithfully executed. let's first take a quick look at one of the targets of these charges and that is phasing in the aca that is a routine
)-close-paren action. whether the administration do? on july 2, it announced the decision to postpone for one year to january 1, 2014 effective date for the aca that workers provide health insurance or pay taxes. this and other subsequently announced the delays do not enforce at all. on the contrary they are merely phasing in the adjustments designed to ensure effective implementation of the statute in accordance with congress purposes. the treasury department announcement makes that clear in the proposed regulations that it has followed through on on september 5 to make that clear as does the treasury